Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Analyzing the Sand Creek Massacre Letters
To start class today, I’d like you to take just a few minutes and identify three key parts of the rhetorical event that today’s reading covers. First, tell us something important about the context that these letters emerged out of. Second, identify a key moment in the letters themselves that you thought was especially persuasive. Third, what did you think was the most important consequence of these letters?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The letters that were written by these 2 men were important to American history because they told the real story of Sand Creek. They appeared at a time where loyalty to America was more important than protecting the lives of the innocent. The letters were extremely convincing through the use of violent imagery. They eventually helped solidify the truth about what happened during the massacre and were able to tell the true intentions of the man behind the tragedy.
ReplyDeleteWe first find out the context of what is going on by seeing what was going on between the two commanders of Chivington and Slough. Chivington was the commander of the First Colorado U.S. volunteer calvary. He was in dispute with Colonel John P. Slough. This introduction shows what kind of leader Chivington was.
ReplyDeleteThen we are lead into what the conflict was going on, which was tension between the white settlers and native tribes in the summer of 1864. The volunteer calvary was ordered for 100 days service in putting down this uprising. We learn a little about the camp they were staying at, the location, the context, and a little about the leaders of the Native American tribes.
Next we get to the important part where we find out what horrible treatment the Native Americans were receiving because of the brutality of the army leaders.
I find Soule's letter to be persuasive, in taking all the blame away from himself. He talks about the actions of Chivington cutting off ears and tongues of the Native American leaders. He places all the blame on him. He also justifies what they were doing by saying they surely would have been threatened along with their families if they had not taken action.
What is interesting about these letters is the way the army actually killed the Indians, and how they try to persuade that it was justified. They were killing innocent women and children. Even as the villages tried to wave white flags, they were still brutally murdering these people. In retrospect they try to make it seem justified. This is significant because it shows that even the army officials knew that they should not be acting this way, but they blindly followed orders to brutally kill.
Written in Blood: The Soule-Cramer Sand Creek Massacre letters reveals a very important part of Western history. First off, I thought it was interesting and was happy to know that Soule and Cramer wanted justice for the Native Tribes. I found it surprising that white male soldiers felt empathetic towards the Native Tribes and ended up trying to defeat the white authorities by writing these letters. Both of the letters described similar accounts and situations that occurred during the massacre. I found it revolting how gruesomely tortured the Native Tribes were. Soule expresses, “I tell you Ned it was hard to see little children on their knees, have their brains beat out by men professing to be civilized…One squaw with her two children, were on their knees, begging for their lives-when one succeeded hitting the Squaw in the thigh, when she took a knife and cut the throats of both children, and then killed herself” (Soule 376). The letters blatantly reveal the corruption inflicted by General Chivington, other soldiers, and people of authority, people who claim to be “civilized.” This incident occurred in the west and I think ties into the overall theme of the Wild West. I thought the letters were especially persuasive because both Soule and Cramer used ethos in their letters. They sounded loyal, trustworthy, and like they were speaking the truth. They also gave reason and proof for every claim they made. The most important consequence of these letters was a positive one. Now that these letters were found, we can see that some white people who lived in the mid 1800s had a decent amount of respect for the Native Americans. The most important consequence is that President Clinton signed the Sand Creek bill on November 7th. “The power of the letters, then and now, lies in their simple honesty, their moral outrage, and the determination of two young men who wanted to see justice done” (Roberts 336).
ReplyDeleteThe Sand Creek Massacre Letters evolved from the trials of the Civil War. Soldiers killed over 160 indians; making a death toll deserving of the name, massacre. Upon investigation of the incident, two officers (Soule and Cramer) documented their findings through letters. The author's decision to allow the reader to read these letters before receiving any commentary added positive persuasion. It gave the reader a chance to form their own opinions first, and listen to another viewpoint after the fact. I think the most important development from the letters was the validation it gives to the testimonies.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these letters are very important to telling the story of the massacre through the eyes of two soldiers who were actually involved in the massacre themselves. Through their letters they showed the world the true story of the Sand Creek Massacre and its evils. One of the letters states, "I tell you Ned, it was hard to see little children on their knees, having their brains beat out by men professing to be civilized." I believe that this is a key moment in the letters and shows how wrong the massacre actually was. By bringing the deaths of children into the picture the letters are able to persuade audiences to see the animalistic cruelty the soldiers had. It really upsets me that these men thought that this was okay and that it was a civilized thing to do. I believe that the most important consequence of the letters was to show the public the immoral actions of the men involved in the massacre and teaching that these actions were not right and should never occur again.
ReplyDeleteThe main point of the letter was to inform and show the true story of these two men Cramer and Soule who were men who refuse to attack the peaceful indians and inturn were judged by their commanding officers. Also, these letters showed their ideas and perspective of what they thought during the massacre. The part that caught my attention the most is when they describe the killings of women, children, and old men. You can clearly see that the men who did not want to fire at these indians were affected by seeing children begging for their lives and having their brains being beaten. These letters show what actually happened back then rather than what people think that happened.
ReplyDeleteThe letters emerged from a series of extremely violent events that helped shape the way people will always consider and remember as how the settlers treated the Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteThe most persuasive parts of the letters for me was the graphic details of the abuse the settlers unleashed on the Native Americans. For example, when S.S. Soule discusses the beating of the Native American children, and the woman that was trying to defend herself. I think that these letters are signifigant because they give people a real look at what happened and the cruelty displayed by these men, and thier blind acceptance of doing what they were told over ruling thier care about other people's lives.
Today’s readings emerged from the time in which the American frontier was being settled, therefore the fact that people were angered with Soule was because they didn’t feel that killing the Indians was wrong. The Indians were unknown to these settling people and therefore they thought they were savage and deserved to be killed in a way. Because the letters were so biased they were definitely persuasive to a certain ideal. They tried to convince us that Soul and Cramer were in the wrong by thinking badly of the massacre, though the letters were sympathetic to the Indians and I thought it was interesting to have that point of view from the white settlers. I find it very surprising that Soul was a figure people looked up to involved in the military and in the community although people were still trying to kill him. The letters were really graphic, I was glad that he wrote about the kind of devastation brought on to the Indians although it was very gruesome. I bet a lot of people during that time period had no idea what their military had inflicted upon the Indians. I liked how the letters were persuasive enough for people to question the actions that occurred in the massacre.
ReplyDeleteThe first part of the article goes into detail about the context of the letters, for readers who are unfamiliar with the Sand Creek Massacre. We first find out about recent events pertaining to the Massacre, and then it goes into the history about what actually happened. Something I feel was important about the context that these letters arose from was that they were not merely military logs, or personal journals from soldiers, but there were letters that a couple outraged and distressed military men wrote for the sole purpose of educating the government and others about the atrocities committed at Sand Creek. They weren’t just records; these letters were written with purpose.
ReplyDeleteThere were a few moments in the letter that triggered emotion for me, one of them being a very simple line at the beginning of Soule’s letter that said “declared their intention to massacre the friendly Indians camped on Sand Creek”, even with a simple line like that, my heart just sank. The worst though, I thought, was the vivid description of the women and children on their knees being beaten and hacked to death. It was gory and disturbing, but it was definitely something that needed to be said and brought to light.
Three things that I found in the Sand Creek massacre were: the killing of Soule, the letters that Soule and Cramer wrote, and the contents of the letter. Through looking back onto these letters I think that it has been able to shape the American view of what did happen. The Indians were surrendering and yet the troops went into the town and massacred, killing everyone brutally. I think that one of the most important parts was how gruesome the killing and how the innocent were even killed. I believe that part that stood out the most for me was how they killed the people. It was not just with a gun but they would cut people's tongues out or open women stomachs and kill an unborn child. This makes me feel sick I cannot even image people doing this to anyone, no matter if they are a "threat". It is disgusting and sickening that then the people who were standing up for what was right were killed. I think these letters brought up morality and still do reading them now.
ReplyDeleteThe significance of the context of the letters is that they emerged during a time in which Native Americans were considered to be inferior, when the new settlers were expanding and wanted land for themselves. A key moment in the letters that was especially persuasive for me was the quote about hurting children that read, “…it was hard to see little children on their knees, having their brains beat out by men professing to be civilized.” That quote really made me think and realize the pure brutality of The Sand Creek Massacre. The corruption involved with early American soldiers was astounding, and the fact that these men often tried to justify their inhumane actions seems impossible to me. Due to these letters, people have a better understanding of what really happened and it gives us all a chance to re-think previous ideas of Westward expansion, which I believe is often portrayed as much less violent than it really was.
ReplyDeleteThe entire reason these letters emerged was because of Territorial Governor John Evans who secured permission to raise a regiment of U.S. volunteers for 100 days service. He did this campaign to hopefully renew his reputation as a soldier and also to have a stepping stone in congress. This was perhaps some of the ethos created but more so was the fact that this document introduced us to Captain Soule who was murdered after admitting that the Sand Creek Massacre was no skirmish but a brutal hell. Soule described this horrid even by unfortunate detail of a massive amount of Native Americans being killed and scalped. One woman he mentions in particular was killed in pregnancy and her baby mutilated. What also was persuasive in Cramer’s letter was the fact that the Native Americans first came out waving the white flag and Cramer later quoted one of the Chiefs saying, “Soldiers no hurt me-soldiers my friends.” Lastly, I feel that the most important consequence that happened because of these letters was the fact that we are learning this tragic history. Although it is hard to read and makes one upset and angry at the American West’s awful past, we must remember how far we have come and also remember what it was like in order to progress and move forward. We as a community must create a better tomorrow especially when it comes to discrimination and hate towards others. As my mother always told me, “You forgive, but you do not forget.”
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my eye was the fact that the authors were describing such violent images. This produced a sense of pathos in the audience. Some may have felt frustrated or upset with the actions that took place. The use of such images effectively persuaded the audience to feel sympathetic towards the innocent victims. The consequence of writing a letter like this could of course be the fact that rebelling against mainstream ideas and actions was considered dangerous and anti-American at the time. The authors must have truly been determined to change the amount of violence and hatred, for they essentially risked their Americanism. However, in retrospect, these letters represent our country in that it contains a very diverse culture. The typical culture of the majority during this time was accepting of violence. Yet, those few who chose to be pacifists symbolized another culture. The letter can help us better understand the culture of these authors who went against mainstream ideas and actions.
ReplyDeleteIn describing the events of the Sand Creek Massacre, the two letters that Soule and Cramer wrote leave very little to the imagination. These were the only two men who out of hundreds of soldiers, were the only ones to refuse to kill innocent people. On their part, this seems very honorable considering the amount of peer pressure that they may have felt, but they let their morals take prevalence. The thing that caught my attention the most was the amount of detail. The shocking and horrifying details provided allowed for the readers to really understand what happened and put themselves in the situation. The way that these people were brutally murdered with no mercy was shocking. To think that these “civilized” people were very savagely murdering people, even women and children, it was just unthinkable. Although these letters were heartbreaking, it really allowed for these issues to be brought to the public so that people would know what really happened so maybe action could be taken.
ReplyDelete